Well making them invincible would help I think.
Which guy because all three replies said you are not required to show ID except for things like driving a car or getting on an airplane.
I would also point out that even if it were required the cops did not ask the white woman for her ID.
(Not having read every response, sorry!)
I feel the most obvious answer to why police are so quick to kill is that they are very rarely held to account for doing so.
We all WANT/NEED to believe our policing forces are only acting as required by circumstance. Even in the face of strong evidence to the contrary., we need to believe. Otherwise who can we turn to, what holds our society together, who is protecting us? And from whom?
The lack of accountability, coupled with deafening silence from what we once assumed were the majority, ‘good, honest cops’, is predictably and very rapidly undermining the credibility of all police services.
And outside of, after shooting press conferences and the top cop offering assurances that there WILL be consequences, there rarely are. And though they always say they won’t stand for this, and they will see this changes, that even more rarely occurs. People aren’t deaf and blind. They know Top cop is just repeating what we’ve all heard a dozen times now. It has ceased to be in any way believable.
But as long as they keep pulling it off, and killer cops walk away, they think we’re buying it.
And whereas a lack of measurable change that the people wanted, (as opposed to what politicians wanted) led directly to a, “Burn down the house!”, candidate. The response, when it comes, (and it must, sooner or later), to no change in this state of affairs, will be far more worrisome than a Trump for president in my most humble opinion.
The first attorney said -
Regards,
Shodan
Thailand has high gun ownership, both legal and illegal (though of course just a fraction of U.S., which has far more guns in private hands than the rest of the world combined.)
Recently, so I saw in my Facebook feed, a man threatened a Thai policeman with a knife. Here is a video record of the result. If these were U.S. police would they be severely reprimanded?
Not very likely. That said, we don’t know much about what happened here, based on that short video. Maybe the officer sensed that the guy with the knife didn’t really mean any harm. It is a gamble to guess someone’s intentions and, in this case, it paid off. Sorry that I don’t have a cite but I’ve heard the percentage of cops who, at some point in their career could have legally fired their weapon but didn’t is somewhere around 75-80%. In informal surveys of officers that I train that number seems about right. Where an officer could get jammed up is if his failure to justifiably employ deadly force results in the risk of, or actual death or injury, to an innocent person or another cop. There is a case in W. Virginia where an officer was fired for not shooting a “suicide by cop” subject. A back-up officer shot and killed the man. The officer is suing to get his job back and my guess is that he will win, based on the little I know about the case.
So let me clarify the question Shodan.
- Two people are in an argument (no crime being committed). If a person is not being detained do they need to produce identification upon demand from an LEO in California?
- Assuming no, then can the officer arrest the person for failing to show ID?
- If no and the officer arrests the person on this non-existent crime, what safeguard* is there against the officer adding on “resisting arrest”, thus the original charge is thrown out but the person still committed a crime.
- I know it is a crime to resist arrest even if no crime is committed. This question is more about the abuse of that law.
IANAL, and I probably don’t understand the law.
-
You don’t need to produce ID, You do need to identify yourself.
-
The officer can arrest you or detain you while he verifies your identification of yourself. How he verifies it, without a license or ID card, could be done in a lot of ways, including dragging you off to the station to have your fingerprints checked, asking around if anyone recognizes you, Heaven knows what. (I am not a cop either).
-
I don’t think the officer can arrest you for resisting arrest just for not showing ID. The safeguard against his doing so is the judge, assuming you appear before one. If the judge asks, “In what way did the defendant resist arrest” and the response is “he refused to give his name and birthdate and address”, I don’t think a charge of resisting arrest is going to stick. If the answer is “he tried to run away” or “he wouldn’t let me cuff him” then it might.
Like I said, this is not at all clear. The ACLU says No, the police say Yes, the lawyer seems to be saying what I said.
Maybe the cop in the video was wrong, or the ACLU is wrong, or maybe they are both wrong.
Regards,
Shodan
Isn’t it odd how we expect civilians to always act as if they’ve been trained in crisis management, yet forgive the police when they act as if they aren’t?
It makes sense.
If the civilian messes up in any way, they die.
If the cop messes up and kills a civilian, he gets a vacation.
Of course the onus should be on the party with less power and more to lose to ensure that they follow any and all direction, including conflicting or contradictory orders, while making sure to put the person with a gun pointed at your head at ease.
Your ignorance of the profession & hatred of those employed in it is duly noted.
They are not given “vacations.” They are taken off the street until the shooting investigation is completed. Or would you prefer that officers involved in shootings continue working the streets before the investigation is completed?
They are also subject to multiple interviews regarding what happened in the shooting.
They are also usually required to see the agency mental health specialist & be cleared before returning to the streets.
During what you call a “vacation” officers will be worrying about whether they will be able to retain their job, be sued by the suspect or their family, and/or possibly face imprisonment. Wouldn’t you call that a “vacation?”
It is a little fucked up that they’re suspended with pay, is the point he’s trying to make. A citizen who made that mistake would be in a jail cell awaiting trial. A cop who makes that mistake often doesn’t even lose pay for the time they’re suspended.
It is a vacation and at the end of it they normally get a commendation and points toward a promotion. If the truly bad cops were fired, jailed, and lost their pension the perception of the profession would improve. It is the slimey backroom way these things are handled that upset the public.
I’m not sure what the alternative is, though. It’s the nature of police work that occasionally a cop will, in the course of his duties, have to do something that will require investigation into whether or not he acted properly. If he did in fact only do what he had to do, it seems harsh for him to miss his salary while this is determined.
I know what the alternative is. If the killing was unwarranted: no one in immediate danger, excessive force used, etc. then
The cop is convicted of murder and imprisoned. He pays for damages out of his pension and assets.
The cops (i.e. the blue line) that lied in the IA investigation to cover it up are fired and it is put in their employment record so their next boss sees it.
The cops that lied in court are fired and prosecuted for perjury. It is made public record so that all future judges know they lie in court.
But neither of those is an alternative to suspending the cop with pay while the investigation is going on. In other words, before it has even been determined that the cop did anything wrong.
There are only a few alternatives :
- Suspend them without pay while the investigation is going on. Which means that every cop who ever fires his weapon is going to be suspended for some period of time - whether the shooting was justified or not. It also means that the time allotted for investigations may be shortened- for example, my agency has to serve disciplinary charges on an employee within 30 days of a suspension without pay. There is no such deadline for a suspension with pay.
- Leave them working while the investigation is going on . Sure, they won’t get a “paid vacation” but I don’t really want them to continue working while they are under investigation. Because the whole point of the investigation is that we don’t yet know whether the action was warranted.
- Suspend them with pay while the investigation is ongoing.
Well, what happens to civvies who shoot people if it’s unclear whether or not they’re guilty of murder?
The shooting is investigated. If enough evidence is found to create a reasonable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, they get arrested. If enough evidence is found to prove guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, they get convicted. They are entitled to the presumption of innocence, the right to reasonable bail, the right to speak to an attorney, and the right not to testify against themselves. Which of these do you feel shouldn’t apply to a police officer?
Regards,
Shodan
If it a civilian and the cop “know” you committed murder the full power of the police works against you with a focus on conviction - not investigation. If it is a cop, the full power of the police is focused on protecting them.
If you are a civilian, lying or even not talking to the cops is “obstruction” (put in quotes for how cops threaten you when you use your Fifth Amendment rights) and in court lying is perjury. If the alleged murderer is a cop, then lying and silence is protecting your own and of course cops never lie on the stand according to many judges.
I don’t suppose you have cites from judges saying that they believe cops never lie on the stand, or instructions from the bench telling juries to give greater weight to the testimony of police vs. anyone else.
Or even numbers of people who were arrested for “obstruction” for not talking to cops.
Regards,
Shodan